Committee hears broad support and sharp debate on constitutional amendment to authorize legislative salaries

Senate Finance Committee members heard several supporters testify in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 1, the proposed constitutional amendment that would allow New Mexico voters to authorize a citizens commission to set legislative salaries.

The resolution would create an independent nine-member commission to recommend salaries and related rules. Proponents told the committee that paying legislators would broaden access to public office and allow lawmakers to devote more time to complex policy issues. Jessa Cowdrey, vice president of operations at CommonSpirit Saint Joseph’s Children, told the committee, “SGR 1 will enable you as legislators and future legislators to have the time and resources necessary for creating solutions to drive our state forward.”

Why it matters: Supporters and several senators framed the proposal as a measure to reduce economic barriers to service and diversify the legislature’s applicant pool. Atza Chavez, executive director of New Mexico Native Vote, said the measure “will allow for space at the table, allowing accessibility for our working class, our young leaders, and reducing conflicts of interests.” Mason Grama of Common Cause New Mexico reported polling showing majority public support for establishing salaries and for an independent salary commission.

Committee debate focused on two recurring concerns: (1) whether the constitution should specify a monetary cap or leave salary levels to the independent commission, and (2) guardrails to protect the state budget if oil-and-gas receipts fall. Senator Cahill offered an amendment to cap the total annual aggregate of legislative salaries at 0.4% of the two-year average oil-and-gas severance tax receipts; she said the draft formula would have produced a roughly $9.24 million pool and “divide that by 112 legislators, that would produce a maximum salary of $82,891 per member.” Opponents of that amendment argued it would reinsert self-interest by tying legislators’ pay to a formula set in the amendment rather than leaving the determination to the proposed independent commission.

The committee voted to table Senator Cahill’s amendment. Roll call on the table motion recorded six votes in favor and three opposed; the amendment was tabled. Later, a motion to give the resolution a do-pass recommendation produced an evenly split 5–5 vote and therefore did not carry.

Discussion also covered timing and implementation. Sponsors explained placing the constitutional amendment on the 2028 ballot — rather than 2026 — would allow time for enabling legislation so voters would see exactly how appointments, qualifications and safeguards would work before deciding. Senators raised practical concerns about per diem, staff costs, and whether an independent commission could reduce salaries during downturns; sponsors said the commission would reassess every four years and that appropriations would control the payment flow.

Actions at the meeting: the committee tabled the oil-and-gas cap amendment (motion to table passed 6–3). A do-pass motion on the joint resolution resulted in a 5–5 tie and did not pass in committee.

What’s next: The committee left the resolution without a favorable recommendation following the tie vote. Additional hearings, amended language, or enabling legislation could be pursued before another committee vote or before the resolution goes to the full Senate.